Evolution is now A FACT OF LIFE

[Malic]

you think that when the first experiment on light bulb happened successfully?
--- did the mars expedition solves your problem, yet you call the method accurate... sorry malic, the result will tell the difference between lies and fact... don't force yourself to conclude, they havent resolved the issue yet... let them continue by the way... but don't tell me they are accurate... tsk tsk tsk...

huh? hahaha, you didn't get it. its your word against theirs, by the way their words made it to science journals. what do you mean they haven't resolved the issue yet? Read more kebs. don't act as if you got it all sort out already. a little humility is not hard to do.

and still by the tone of your argument, you still focus on the lapses rather on successful dates.
--- because there were no result presented yet... only a defendant trying hard to eliminate ... hmmm... d nalang sumpayan... kay lisud na...

it's only subjective when you insist on the theory that creationists had proposed. This is science kebs so you base it on science. besides dates of creation had Christians fight among themselves.
--- aw nya d man ko mo contest? so? i don't have that burdent to tell you i am right... i dont care... sorry malic TRY HARDER.

no result presented? i don't know, how long have you been in evo-creation debates kebs? by the way you present your arguments looks like you're new. daghan naman successful dates kebs oi.

di ka mo contest and yet, how many pages had you spent to defend creationism by way of attacking the credibility of Evolution? pila na kebs? then here you are washing your hands. tsk tsk.

[kebotDiNaMute]

fyi...The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years. An error margin of 2–5 % has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks.

Relax...

Radiometric dating

There are a number of assumptions involved in radiometric dating. They are assumptions because they are unable to be proved one way or the other.
Radiometric dating - Conservapedia

--- unsa gani to 2-5% Error. hahaha. ka algre nmo brad. Check out those assumption unsa..


stratigraphy and molecular clocks as other tools to know our evolutionary past
--- read pod previous posts before blabbing unsa ni imo gipanghambog....

Hehehe. Ufortunately this is not only a VERY VERY WRONG ANALOGY but is a gross misunderstanding of evolutionary history. The study of evolution is like forensics. You don't need to turn back time to observe what happen...you only need to generate evidence and validate it from other scientific fields.

--- so whats the difference brad when you say:
1. The study of Evolution is like forensics.
2. Evolution is like forensics.
--- please take note we are talking about procedures here ha...
--- and i give you same procedures, different result... so kinsa may sak2? hahay! focus on this lang sah tanawn nato kinsay "Bakakon Liar, Evil".. hehehe.

kebs, if you're here to show your "pagkasweto" you can go ahead and flaunt it -- I'm here to correct notions and misinformation. Consider this a favor para di ka pirmi ma laughing stock dire.
--- hehehe, you are not laughing i suppose... hmmm must be a wrong assumption... again. your evidence does not support your claim... too bad. Same pattern of thinking...

--- ako sweto, well i dont. I kept reading what you are posting... so keep it up...

[kebotDiNaMute]

huh? hahaha, you didn't get it. its your word against theirs, by the way their words made it to science journals. what do you mean they haven't resolved the issue yet? Read more kebs. don't act as if you got it all sort out already. a little humility is not hard to do.





no result presented? i don't know, how long have you been in evo-creation debates kebs? by the way you present your arguments looks like you're new. daghan naman successful dates kebs oi.

di ka mo contest and yet, how many pages had you spent to defend creationism by way of attacking the credibility of Evolution? pila na kebs? then here you are washing your hands. tsk tsk.

C14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows:
"If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it."
Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method..
Radiometric dating - Conservapedia

by the way their words made it to science journals
--- the last time i checked those a journals are prone to errors... do you really rely on that? hmmm

a little humility is not hard to do
--- are you using humility to support your theory? hmmm, Im not contesting here... I am the one asking... in my POV It is supposed to be you not me... again why contest?

by way of attacking the credibility of Evolution?
--- omg, just now lang nmo na notice... of course because you contest... thats why im asking you these question. I kept asking you this question "DO YOU STILL WANT TO CONTEST?", brad please do not complain... thats how it is... believing does not give you a responsibility, but insisting does... /sigh

then here you are washing your hands
--- i can do this because i kept my hands clean. ang problema sayon raman unta brad. If you don't contest, NO QUESTIONS ASKED... Hasul noh? hehehe.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

I know some people here are just here for the sake of the ARGUMENT . Please keep it healthy my fellow forumers . Anyways .... some points I want to share also :

- Forget about talking snakes and man made from dust . If we understand the bible literally , it will not only bring us nowhere but also confusion .

- No matter how hardcore of an EVOLUTIONIST we are , dont forget to give credit to the story of the Book of Genesis of the bible and yes , CREATONIST got nothing on this .

- Both CREATIONIST and EVOLUTIONIST should work hand in hand . Never did it happen that SCIENCE alone can support its claim to a theory and vice versa with BELIEVERS / BIBLE FANATICS .

- By teaming up ... a common goal can be achieve and that is KNOWLEDGE , not arrogance and POWER TRIP who is better in ARGUING .

- For the sake of DEBATE .... that is fine . CREATION versus EVOLUTION but keep it civilized and in a respectful matter . I learned alot here from shared ideas , please dont make it a candidate for a thread closure and deletion .

[jamesmusslewhite]

I keep hearing the same evothugs spouting how Darwinian Theory is some how relegated to a law and that no referable man of science could have doubt of it's volatility. That scientist are supportive and only small-witted mindless religious Bible preaching thumpers are the thorn in the side of evolution. Science has no problem because science has somehow proven Darwin to be right and is above reproach. They ridicule those against Darwinian Theory are fools, uneducated and non scientific minded drones and deserve to be scoffed at and ridiculed. We that make the evothugs LIERS and the following list of referable College Professors and leaders of their fields who like me had questioned Darwin findings.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660

Do us all a favor write these esteemed gentlemen and tell you short minded fables to them. Spare us you hateful dribble.

[brownprose]

Relax...

Radiometric dating

There are a number of assumptions involved in radiometric dating. They are assumptions because they are unable to be proved one way or the other.
Radiometric dating - Conservapedia

asa man

--- unsa gani to 2-5% Error. hahaha. ka algre nmo brad. Check out those assumption unsa..

Conservapedia diay! Gisagulan man gud ninyog non-scientific assumptions. Mao nang di mo motoo og uranium-lead dating because your source says: while the bible(the infallible word of God[5]) quotes the world to be around 6-10 thousand years old. --- Mao nay diperensya.

stratigraphy and molecular clocks as other tools to know our evolutionary past
--- read pod previous posts before blabbing unsa ni imo gipanghambog....

How much do you understand stratigraphy and molecular clock? could you please enlighten me ...if you object on something you must have known what it is. Let's test your comprehension skills. Go!

--- so whats the difference brad when you say:
1. The study of Evolution is like forensics.
2. Evolution is like forensics.

--- please take note we are talking about procedures here ha...
--- and i give you same procedures, different result... so kinsa may sak2? hahay! focus on this lang sah tanawn nato kinsay "Bakakon Liar, Evil".. hehehe.

So obvious. When you say that the study of evolution is like forensics means both acknowledge the accepted scholarly or scientific methodology and norms under which the facts regarding an event, or an artifact, or some other physical evidence are ascertained as being "the case in question."

Evolution is a product of scientific inquiry from out of the many disciplines in science. While forensics is one form of scientific inquiry/ or a method, if you will, to ascertain facts of the case by examining evidence. Common to both Forensics and Evolution is the use of scientific methods to find coherence of the present by deducing evidence and past events.

kebs, if you're here to show your "pagkasweto" you can go ahead and flaunt it -- I'm here to correct notions and misinformation. Consider this a favor para di ka pirmi ma laughing stock dire.
--- hehehe, you are not laughing i suppose... hmmm must be a wrong assumption... again. your evidence does not support your claim... too bad. Same pattern of thinking...

Well you can say that my evidence "does not support my claim." After all, I have the backing of just only 99.85% of the scientific community. So who do you think that matters to me the most?

[Malic]

C14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows:
"If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it."
Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method..
Radiometric dating - Conservapedia

of course...nobody in his right mind would put a failure experiment in the main text. but this is not done to deceive the public but to avoid misinformation. don't spiced his words with malice kebs.

by the way their words made it to science journals
--- the last time i checked those a journals are prone to errors... do you really rely on that? hmmm

hahaha, unbelievable,you really did check the journals? sorry, again its your word against theirs.

a little humility is not hard to do
--- are you using humility to support your theory? hmmm, Im not contesting here... I am the one asking... in my POV It is supposed to be you not me... again why contest?

what? are you confused again? tsk tsk...i asked you to be humble and you thougth that i am using humility to support my theory? kebot and his pecuilar interpretations.

by way of attacking the credibility of Evolution?
--- omg, just now lang nmo na notice... of course because you contest... thats why im asking you these question. I kept asking you this question "DO YOU STILL WANT TO CONTEST?", brad please do not complain... thats how it is... believing does not give you a responsibility, but insisting does... /sigh

now lang nako na noticed? hahaha, read again what i said, it implies the opposite of what you phrased as " now lang nimo na noticed." comprehension problems kebs?

no no no kebs, you are pushing the idea of creationism by way of attacking the credibility of evolution. We are not contesting, the evo-creation debate was long gone until you started it. don't turned this around on us. don't be dishonest. your god can see your lies. jsut because you THINK that your god asked you to defend his word doesn't mean you are license to lie.

then here you are washing your hands
--- i can do this because i kept my hands clean. ang problema sayon raman unta brad. If you don't contest, NO QUESTIONS ASKED... Hasul noh? hehehe.

yes you can do anything. but we are here to blow the whistle so you'll have the chance to re-examined your position.

lisod diay ang among questions? hehe, you don't want questions? then stop pushing your idea.

[brownprose]

what does your logic tell you?
--- loosing reasons/explanations? its straight forward man brad...

hmmm, Yes the Bible have proof of Evolution... The implication is there is a creator....

I don't wish to drop biblical texts here but just to prove my point that there is a biblical basis for evolution is in Ecclesiastes 3:18 ~ "I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts."
I can drop a lot of them but that is another discussion and off topic.

so let me ask you do you believe on the Creator?

what these people are trying to do is to eliminate Creator through evolution... kebot will try to contest on that claim through evolution...

Of course. I believe in a Creator (note the caps) as much as I believe that he created evolution.

[Malic]

malic sorry, when you said that god is something... i don't buy it as my statement...

of course its a proposition... sorry i don't contest who he is... lets talk about your EVO since you kept on telling us they are correct and accurate.. hahaha

clever way of side stepping from a mistake done by yourself. Did i say God is something? tsk tsk..hmmm

[Malic]

I keep hearing the same evothugs spouting how Darwinian Theory is some how relegated to a law and that no referable man of science could have doubt of it's volatility. That scientist are supportive and only small-witted mindless religious Bible preaching thumpers are the thorn in the side of evolution. Science has no problem because science has somehow proven Darwin to be right and is above reproach. They ridicule those against Darwinian Theory are fools, uneducated and non scientific minded drones and deserve to be scoffed at and ridiculed. We that make the evothugs LIERS and the following list of referable College Professors and leaders of their fields who like me had questioned Darwin findings.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660

Do us all a favor write these esteemed gentlemen and tell you short minded fables to them. Spare us you hateful dribble.

james, we are basing our arguments from people within the scientific community.